Holding: Whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act, a suit seeking to enforce a state-law arbitration obligation arises under federal law if the petition to compel itself raises no federal question but the dispute sought to be arbitrated involves federal law.

Holding: Whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state law deceptive practice claims in connection with the advertising of cigarettes as â€œlightâ€ or containing â€œlower tar and nicotine.â€

Holding: Whether the exclusionary rule should apply to evidence seized incident to an arrest unlawful under the Fourth Amendment due to erroneous information negligently provided by another law enforcement agency.

Holding: Whether courts below properly enjoined the Navy's use of sonar during certain training exercises for failure to conduct an environmental impact statement over a finding of emergency circumstances by the Council on Environmental Quality.

Holding: Whether, under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) and Blakely v. Washington (2004), a sentencing judge violates the Sixth Amendment by imposing consecutive sentences based on a fact not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.

Holding: Whether, for qualified immunity purposes, police officers may enter a home without a warrant on the theory that the owner consented to the entry by previously permitting an undercover informant into the home. (Note: in addition to the questions presented, the Court directed the parties to brief and argue the following question: â€œWhether the Courtâ€™s decision in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) should be overruled?â€)

Holding: Whether, on habeas review, the 9th Circuit erred in granting relief by deeming an erroneous jury instruction to constitute structural error requiring reversal because the jury may have relied upon it.

Holding: Whether the Narrangansett Tribe may receive benefits under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 if the Tribe was not federally recognized on the date of enactment, and whether the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act foreclosed the Tribeâ€™s right to exercise sovereignty over land in the state.

Holding: Whether the FCC provided an adequate explanation, or instead acted arbitrarily and capriciously, in changing its policy to permit isolated uses of expletives on broadcast television to be considered â€œindecentâ€ under federal law.

Holding: Whether district attorney supervisors are entitled to civil immunity from allegations they failed to ensure line prosecutors were aware, and thus able to disclose to the defendant, that a jailhouse informant was to receive benefits in exchange for his testimony.

Holding: Whether the provision of the Immigration and Naturalization Act that prohibits the granting of asylum to individuals found to have themselves engaged in persecution applies to those who were compelled to do so by threats of deaths or torture.

Holding: Whether a state forensic analystâ€™s laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is â€œtestimonialâ€ evidence subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington (2004).

Holding: Whether 28 U.S.C 2254, the federal habeas provision governing claims adjudicated on the merits in state court, should be applied to claims based on evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel the state court refused to consider.

Holding: Whether the Clean Water Act permits the EPA to undergo a cost-benefit analysis in determining the most environmentally friendly technology at cooling water intake structures, and to regulate such structures at existing as well as new facilities.

Holding: Whether the Supreme Court of Oregon, on remand from the Courtâ€™s 2007 decision on the constitutionality of a $79.5 million punitive damages award based on harms done to non-named plaintiffs, improperly asserted a state law procedural bar having the effect of precluding Phillip Morris from asserting a constitutional claim.

Holding: Whether, in the context of a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, an officer may conduct a pat-down search of a passenger when the officer has an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed and presently dangerous, but had no reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger is committing, or has committed, a criminal offense.

Holding: Whether a federal habeas claim is â€œprocedurally defaultedâ€ because it has been presented twice to the state courts, and whether a federal habeas court is powerless to recognize that a state court erred in holding that state law precludes reviewing a claim.

Holding: Whether current and former federal officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, are entitled to qualified immunity against allegations they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against individuals detained in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

January Sitting

Holding: Whether a disputed judgment against a military contractor at issue between Iran and the United States before the Claims Tribunal in The Hague is subject to attachment under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act.

Holding: Whether the Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement Act of 2005 provides prisoners sentenced under state law the right to federally appointed and funded counsel to pursue clemency under state law, and whether a district courtâ€™s denial of such a request may be appealed without a certificate of appealability.

Holding: Whether federal law permits the suppression of a voluntary confession made more than six hours after arrest but before presentment to a magistrate, as a consequence of unreasonable delay in presentment.

Holding: Whether the decision of a court of appeals to stay an alienâ€™s removal pending consideration of the alienâ€™s petition for review is governed by the standard set forth in 8 U.S.C. 1252(f)(2) or instead by the traditional test for stays and preliminary injunctive relief.

February Sitting

Holding: Whether the Courtâ€™s prior decision in United States v. Navajo Nation (2003) foreclosed a finding that the government breached fiduciary duties in connection with Indian coal lease amendments.

Holding: Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits public school officials from conducting a strip search of a student suspected of possessing and distributing a prescription drug on campus in violation of school policy.

Holding: Whether the 30-day time limit in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) for filing a notice of appeal, or the 60-day time limit in Rule 4(a)(1)(B), applies to a qui tam action under the False Claims Act.

Holding: Whether municipalities may decline to certify results of an exam that would make disproportionately more white applicants eligible for promotion than minority applicants, due to fears that certifying the results would lead to charges of racial discrimination.

Holding: Whether the petitionerâ€™s conviction for mail, bank and wire fraud qualified as an aggravated felony under the immigration laws, the penalty for which is lifetime banishment from the country.

Holding: Whether the holding of a state post-conviction hearing to determine the mental capacity of a capital defendant whose death sentence was affirmed before Atkins v. Virginia (2002), which barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants, violates the Double Jeopardy clause.

Holding: Whether 12 USC Â§ 484 and 12 CFR Â§ 7.4000 prohibit measures taken by the New York State Attorney General to enforce state fair lending law against national banks by subjecting those entities to â€œvisitorial powers.â€

Holding: Whether parents of a student who has never previously received special education services from a school district may be eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for reimbursement of private school tuition.

Holding: Whether the appellant is eligible to bail out from the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and whether Congress provided sufficient justification of current voting discrimination when extended the requirement in 2006 for another twenty-five years.

Cases Not (Yet) Set for Argument

Holding: Whether Congress, in passing the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, authorized the indefinite military detention of a legal immigrant seized on domestic soil whom the government alleged to have conspired with al Qaeda to carry out attacks against the United States.

Aug. 2015

In a conversation with Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, Justice Samuel Alito reflects upon (among other things) his arrival on the Court, recent First Amendment cases, the themes in his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, and his love for baseball.